Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Creeping Rot

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state. – John Dewey

Maybe I should change my name to “Cassandra”. Back at the height of neofeminist power in the early ‘90s, I predicted that within a decade or so we would start seeing a backlash against women’s rights, and furthermore that many women would be duped into supporting it just as people are always duped into supporting infringement of their freedoms in the name of “safety” or “equality”. But because my mind isn’t twisted enough to conceive of representing a reduction in legal responsibility as a step toward equality, I could never have anticipated the pathological irrationality known as the Swedish Model.

For new readers who may be unfamiliar with it, under Swedish law prostitution is legal but hiring a prostitute illegal; it has been rightfully pointed out that this is exactly the same as legalizing the sale of cocaine or heroin but criminalizing their purchase. But it’s far more sinister than that; though neofeminists in many countries laud the model as a giant leap forward for women’s rights, any sane mind could see that it was anything but that because it classifies prostitutes as tantamount to legal minors. The closest legal equivalent to a prostitute in a Swedish Model jurisdiction is a girl below the age of consent; she can give consent to sex and even actively seduce a man, but is not legally liable for her actions because she is considered incompetent to consent to the act. The man who has sex with her, on the other hand, is considered fully competent and is therefore legally liable. In other words, the adult man is defined as the moral and legal superior of the underage girl, therefore his actions constitute a crime but hers do not. Similarly, under Swedish law a woman is defined as a legal incompetent who is not allowed to consent to paid sex, but because she is incompetent cannot be prosecuted for it either. Men are specifically defined as the moral and legal superiors of women, because they are held responsible for the transaction no matter who initiated it.

Neofeminists are so blinded by their hatred of men and bound by their own “victim” rhetoric that they are unable to recognize that these laws rob adult women of agency and define us as permanent adolescents; they establish a very dangerous precedent, that it is legally acceptable to abrogate women’s right to self-determination under the excuse of “protecting” us from our own choices. Once such a precedent is firmly established it becomes a small matter to bar women from doing anything else the government doesn’t want us to do, which is of course exactly why male politicians enthusiastically embrace this mass psychosis. What the fanatical neofeminists convince themselves and their minions is a boon for women is nothing but the bait intended to lure us into the same cage to which our sisters in Muslim countries are confined: control of our movements, livelihood and sexuality “for our own good”. The Swedish Model is nothing other than one of the first steps toward a secular Western version of purdah.

At present, this creeping rot has only infected Sweden, Norway and Iceland (which has contracted a particularly virulent form of the disease), but it is rapidly spreading as crafty male politicians recognize it as an easy way to roll back women’s rights and have yet another weapon to use against male citizens they wish to harass or ruin, while simultaneously convincing gullible, fanatical neofeminists (not to mention stupid or naïve female amateurs) that they support “equality for women”. These wolves in sheep’s clothing have promoted Swedish-style legislation in Ireland and the U.K. and a number of jurisdictions in the U.S. appear to be moving toward it; now the plague appears to be spreading to France, as reported in this story from the April 13thGuardian:

…A cross-party commission of French MPs have recommended criminalising all clients of sex workers, meaning anyone who buys sex from any kind of prostitute would face prison and a fine…The Socialist Danielle Bousquet and Guy Geoffroy of…[the] right-wing UMP said clients must understand that any visit to a prostitute encouraged slavery and trafficking – which 80% of the estimated 20,000 sex-workers in France were victims of. Roselyne Bachelot, the social affairs minister, favours criminalising clients. She told the commission inquiry: “There is no such thing as freely chosen and consenting prostitution. The sale of sexual acts means women’s bodies are made available for men, independently of the wishes of those women.” Proposals for a law could be drawn up this month but it would not be debated in parliament before 2012.

In France prostitution is not illegal, but activities around it are. Brothels…were outlawed in 1946. Pimping is illegal, as is paying for sex from a minor. In 2003 a controversial law against soliciting…[made] it illegal to stand in a public place known for prostitution dressed in revealing clothes. Sex-workers’ groups in France have long campaigned for legal status and rights.

The French actor, Philippe Caubère…is open about regularly paying sex-workers €200 for sex. He said the government was playing politics in the runup to next year’s presidential election. “First it was immigrants, now it’s prostitutes. This is plain populism and shows a disdain for individual liberties,” he said. He told Le Parisien the government was not doing enough under existing laws to help exploited and trafficked women. “As for the other women, leave them alone. They take care of men who mostly live in sexual misery and terrible solitude. They are remarkable women.”…The French justice minister, Michel Mercier, supports criminalising clients, but the interior minister, Claude Guéant, said it would be difficult to make buying sex a crime when prostitution itself was not illegal.

I’m sure you’ll recognize the usual prohibitionist tactics such as the picking of ridiculously inflated figures out of the air; this is the second time I’ve heard that ludicrous 80% figure lately, but I’m sure it won’t be the last. Note the statement made by Bachelot? This is precisely what I’m talking about; she flatly denies that women are capable of consenting to prostitution, just as we define young teenagers as unable to consent to sex. Since it’s obvious to anyone with a two-digit IQ that women can and do consent to transactional sex all the time, Bachelot and her collectivist cronies are clearly arguing that women are incompetent to make our own sexual decisions.

It may be that the media are exaggerating the danger and that more reasonable opinions will eventually prevail, but the danger is still very real; in a recent email Laura Agustín told me that the European parliament “recommended” the Swedish Model for all European countries and that Israel was also considering it. Even Denmark, long among the most progressive of European countries on sexual matters, is facing pressure from trafficking fanatics to infantilize women in the name of “protecting” them from “trafficking”. The linked story (thanks to EconJeff for providing it) is from CNN, which has a strong anti-sex work bias and so overstates both the effectiveness of the Swedish Model in eradicating prostitution and the popularity of the model among Danish legislators; Laura tells me that the sex worker advocates there are reasonably sure it can’t pass in Denmark now, but that “it’s the way the wind is blowing everywhere over here.” I’m sad to say it’s the way things are blowing over here as well; unless something is done, the young women of today can look forward to increasing restrictions on their sexual freedom and agency in the name of “protecting” them, and if they dare to protest they risk being classified as mentally ill.

130 Responses

Men who support it do so because they’re puritanical and relish the idea of getting back control of female sexuality. If they have to beat other men up to get it, fine; remember, women use men to control other men. You hear no women complaining about how women aren’t registered for potential drafting into the army. But they’re extremely happy – if not giddy – about using male soldiers to put down other men or women they disapprove of.

Women who support this garbage do so because they hate prostitution and it has less than zero to do with the abuse of women. Few women care a whit for sluts, harlots and prostitutes: Despite the rhetoric, the woman-in-the-street ignores the ideology and the humanitarian charade and goes for the meat:

They hate prostitutes because it cuts down their personal power. It allows men to buy sex without worshipping pussies. It lets men escape sexless marriages and come home again.

Women seek to control men and other women. This is the nature of the female complex. It’s been true in every social primate species.

The males vie amongst each other. The worlds of women are more machiavellian, more cruel and more sadistically calculating than any male politician has ever understood. This is as true for dogs as rats and guinea pigs and gerbils and humans and chimpanzees.

Female chimps are savage to each other. Male chimps can be, but their violence is extremely targeted; they also form alliances more readily.

Female dogs are all nice and good but the smallest slight will lead one bitch to nurse a grudge. Al of a sudden, without warning, she ups and removes the throat of the offending female when the female least suspects it. Male dogs tussle and fight, often bitterly, but once the pecking order is established, it’s established and they get on with it.

Female mammals hold the next generation in thrall and it’s theirs to give out.

Females of all species, including humans, care deeply about their relatives and offspring. But no-one is as profoundly oblivious about the fates of others than female humans with children.

Males without children are often the same.

The odd thing is that males with children are often deeply invested in society: suddenly the fates of others matter hugely.

There’s a deep, profound selfishness about female nature that men just don’t have. It’s a kind of gormlessness or guilelessness; the sheer depth of social cruelty is, in literature and history, understood to be a female trait evidenced by both men and women, but most exquisitely among women.

We have an illusion that women are morally superior. They’re not. Anyone who’s ever worked with a woman in any organization – especially other women working with women – knows this. Pettiness, backstabbing, politics and vicious vengeance are almost universally female. I’ve watched this. I’ve listened as almost all of the women I’ve worked with have all said it’s easier by far to work with men, any men, than it is with women.

Men have said the same thing.

it’s not because of “male-centered organizational concepts”. All-female organizations are usually the worst.

The feminists can say whatever the hell they want, but the reason, at its core, women are willing to give up agency is to further the battle against the hated freedom of male sexuality.

The Prostitutes have betrayed the Sacred Union, the Oil Embargo.

It’s an old criticism, but I’ve seen no evidence against this summary and much for it.

Let’s hear what the neo-feminists have to say.

(BTW, by saying these things about women I’m not disparaging them: I think the “Women Are Morally Superior” crap is similar to the “Noble Savage” idea. Women are Human. This means they’re deeply flawed beings, in ways similar to but not identical to men (as gross categories; Individuals straddle that line liberally).

Men are violent, aggressive, domineering, and presumptive. These are bad and good things: Men such as these are often the sexiest for women, despite the talk.

Women are capricious, fickle, much better at the subtle art of subterfuge and deceit, though not actually fundamentally more dishonest, and much more manipulative.

Men are blunt instruments. Our politics are always relatively straightforward. You never know what women are doing. They wear masks within masks within masks.

Even in Korea, where everyone wears them, women have many more layers.

Men have been telling themselves not to trust women for 10,000 years. Every single piece of literature in every language on Earth echoes this. Call it misogyny, but the fact that this is easy to verify lends some credence to the differing methods of each gender.

I’ve seen 10-year-old girls tool the living shit out of a 10-year-old boy, leaving him with no lunch but thinking he got the better of the deal.

I’m not saying they’re evil: Men rape and murder and steal and calculate, too.

But the methods and tactics of each gender are likely programmed and they’re very different.

Point being:

It’s entirely within the realm of possiblity that women understand the danger prostitutes represent, and resent and dislike them. They can be motivated by base self-interest as much as any many. Pedestalizing women insults them.

Like men, women are human. They’re as evil and as good as men. I suggest, albeit, in very slightly different ways.

You’re absolutely right, and what’s more it has to be this way for the survival of the species. Kipling stated it best a century ago (this is one of my favorite poems, BTB) and I quoted him in my two efforts on the subject. Women are not “morally superior” as Victorians and feminists claim, nor “morally inferior” as religious fundamentalists of several types claim; we’re just morally different, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as we all understand each other.

Susan, I agree that prostitution increases the prostitute’s economic power and that of women as a while, but I think what Gorbachev means is that many amateur women see prostitutes as reducing their individual holds over their husbands, and thus their personal power.

I totally agree about prohibition, though; the neofeminist nonsense about prostitution being a product of patriarchy is so moronic when one realizes that it’s the most patriarchal cultures which suppress us the most viciously.

I think the original commenter was saying that prostitution decreases the power of women who are not prostitutes. Of course those who are paid for these services earn money, but that’s not what he is talking about.

Much society-approved sex is transactional in nature, but the transactions take place in currencies that inherently disadvantage many men, to the direct benefit of women who are more skilled at those transactions (as well as, indirectly, other men who are more skilled). Not every man is destined to meet his perfect woman (that’s not unfair or anything; most men aren’t perfect either). A man who finds his needs met by prostitution is unlikely to find himself paying alimony and child support for decades, or trapped in a loveless sexless marriage. Women who (rightly or wrongly) perceive these institutions as vital to their interest don’t approve of other options, and don’t approve of prostitution.

I’m going to get a roasting for this. It needs laying out in the daylight.

Nature has a single purpose for Homo Sapiens Sapiens : Breed Generation N+1, as a species-wide imperative.

It gives women a set of conflicting drives to ensure the best mate is chosen, by instinct, and incentives not to ignore those drives, that are biologically nigh-on inexorable, incuding the counteracting of denial, because that would be a failure of BGN+1.

It gives men a set of drives that compliment that process, including thwarting persistent denial of mating, because that would be a failure of BGN+1 just as much as not being a *good mate to protect the offspring*.

One of those *extreme* outcomes is, in the face of widespread denial of mating, the overwhelming urge to mate, forcibly, because under those circumstances BGN+1 is at risk of total faliure.

Denying any imperative biological drive is playing with fire, and only something that an exceptional individual can do, because that denies the imperative for BGN+1, and Nature can’t have that becoming widespread.

So we ignore the drives and needs of our mates at our peril. (Still mutuality, of course, but we are loosing sight of that idea, and where our instincts fit into that).

Nature doesn’t care about social mores, morals or concepts we invented in the last 10000 years of “civilised” human society.

And a lot of us are still operating at the reflexive level; especially about this area of human experience and without cognizing that fact.

This isn’t a rape-apologist rant, though. If every male was “sexed into the mattress” by a willing female, we’d have a zero incidence of it, as a function of instinctive behaviour, and a massive outbreak of gender harmony into the bargain.

This was an interesting post to read; I admit, I never thought of it this way, the rendering of women as children. Do you have any specific examples of how this negatively impacts women, on a street level? I can see the neofeminists viewpoint: men will be arrested for purchasing sex. I’m curious as to why you think this is bad for women? Which freedoms in particular can be taken away from women? Obviously, the Swedish model is hell for men. It means lonely men have no outlet and nowhere to go – in short – a living hell. But can you think of a specific example that is not abstract of how this is bad for women?

Absolutely I can. How about bogus research showing that abortion is psychologically bad and physically dangerous for women (aggressively promoted by fanatics just as neofeminists promote their bogus studies of sex work) being used as a rationale to ban it? How about REAL statistics on danger to policewomen being used to ban them from that work? How about giving the government the power to dissolve marriages in which the husband is declared abusive? How about banning stripping (already accomplished in Iceland), porn, BDSM, sugar daddy arrangements, marital infidelity, premarital sex and all other non-marital sex using the established precedent that the government has the right to overrule women’s sexual choices? And that’s just a few off the top of my head. It’s awfully hard to keep that camel out of the tent once’s he’s got his nose under the flap…

If I may also reply from a practical standpoint. You ask “I’m curious as to why you think this is bad for women? But can you think of a specific example that is not abstract of how this is bad for women?”

The research against the Swedish Model is there. You just have to dig through the propaganda to find it. Fine, it’s a license to fuck for women, however practically speaking, a woman still has to find customers to get paid so they can eat and it still takes two to tango. By taking away her customers (or at the very least reducing the demand) it drives women to engage in riskier behavior to survive.

Example:
Two Hookers – Six Clients: No problem, three for each, take turns, whatever, no need for competition because there is plenty to go around.

Now Two Hookers – One Client: Both competing. How do you compete? By either offering a huge discount in which case the hooker has to try and work harder and seek out new and unknown clients to make up the difference. Or by offering a service the other hooker won’t, i.e. bareback full service which is a huge health risk but hey, she has to eat TONIGHT.

Yea yea sure sure. They spout off that Sweden has seen a HUGE reduction in the amount of prostitution. Do you really think they just disappeared? No. Now they are in the dark alleys and shadowy corners because thats where the clients have to be. No longer can these women work in numbers which is safer or even in semi public areas. No now they are forced to go alone to a paranoid client. Yea … that’s safe.

Now the client knows that a hooker can turn him in without her own arrest if she so chooses. Sounds good in theory. No, now client is going to threaten her life and those of her family if she takes the initiative to report him.

It’s a bullshit system which causes more harm than good if a person cared enough to scratch through the shiny veneer to the rotting wood underneath.

The Swedish Model is still an attempt to *disable prostitution by law*. The fact that it uses an “anti-alias mask” of legislation (all around it) instead of an “alias mask” of legislation (on it directly) is not really relevant.

SM, like its counterpart, forces prostitution into the shadows where the exploiters, thugs, and worse are gleefully rubbing their hands.

And just as ably denies Women their agency to choose, by trying to remove the (instinctive) demand, which *will* get sublimated into more aggressive, forceful, and ultimately rapist behaviour, eventually (see post above).

Not to mention that it denies male agency to seek sex with a consentual (though incentivised) mate, which he could look on even as a supportive act if he’s not a total tool (which most prostitutes would agree with, IMO)

Nope. Take a look at the French article; the UMP is right-wing. Also read the linked article on the Irish situation; one of the groups pushing it there is heavily Catholic. And in the U.S. its backers are largely Christian fundamentalist groups. These laws are not in any way pro-woman; they are anti-sex, and thus popular across the imaginary “political spectrum”. The whole idea of “left” and “right” is just window-dressing anyhow; the true political division is collectivist vs. individualist.

The whole idea of “left” and “right” is just window-dressing anyhow; the true political division is collectivist vs. individualist.

And this is why I haunt your blog. You are sex worker advocacy while I’m more economic and political rants, but this is one of the few places on the web I can find which rejects the notion that elites need to control the populace for their own good, in favor of autonomy of the individual.

Thank you, Emily! At the risk of sounding like a “teenage Rand on pot” again, this is why I think these problems will become less pressing once we develop cheap space travel. Only by giving individualists an infinite horizon, the ability to ALWAYS find someplace else to go once a particular realm devolves into collectivism, does the human species stand a chance of living up to its true potential. Right now, Man’s entire habitable universe is carved up into fiefdoms so all we have is a choice of tyrants, and that (as Frank Herbert recognized) is a very bad situation for our growth as a species.

“this is one of the few places on the web I can find which rejects the notion that elites need to control the populace for their own good, in favor of autonomy of the individual.”

It seems I can hardly visit any website, on any subject, and NOT read about how collectivism is ruining everything, about how we are really such rugged individualists at heart, and most people just don’t seem to be able to see this when it’s so obvious.

It almost doesn’t matter what the subject is: a YouTube video about architecture or robotics will have somebody tying it to elites and sheeple and blah blah blah.

Usually this is presented as reasonable conservative warning us against those evil liberals, but sometimes it’s reasonable liberals warning us against the evil conservatives.

I’ve always noticed these seemingly negative aspects of the “feminine” – the cattiness, the backstabbing cruelty, the vicious snarly opportunism and the near-total hypocrisy.

Looked at in another perspective, I’ve also seen how these thigns are not necessarily negative.

In a survival situation, it’s all well and good to be loyal to the end, committed to abstract notions of fairness (an entirely male idea, actually), equality and order, justice and liner clarity.

Linear clarity is nice. But let’s be clear: If you’re a woman with 3 kids, the actual survival of your 3 kids is pretty much more important than anything else in the universe. Get those priorities wrong, and suddenly, no more kids, and your genes die out.

The males, … well, … they serve the genes, too. But for them, …

Things like civilization and society and social order and greater things are more useful. The moment they start to supercede raw survival, the organism perishes. Men get carried away with shit all the time. Look, I’m going to play with toy trains. I’m going to sit here for 180 hours a week and invent Zippers. I’m going to wax loquacious about the weather while we wonder where food will come from. Etc.

That kind of single0-minded focus and loyalty to abstract concepts and ideals is all well and good, but there’s a reason none of those things are regarded as female, why despite endless encouragement vanishingly few women take up these tasks or identify with these ideologies.

Men can do this because they’re expendable. Lose two men, who cares? Every lost woman and her children is lost potential population.
expend.

Women are machiavellian because they needed to be. Men are moralistic and and idealistic because they could be.

Two sides of the same coin.

I’ve never, ever read of women being celebrated as the superior gender morally. Men care about loyalty, purity of thought, action and abstinence of vice. They Fight to the Last Man and see it as Noble.

Historically, the scavengrs and the pickers-up have always been women. They care about (their) children.

On the other hand, all the things we associate with civilization – art, music, math, science, order, laws, regulations, social contracts (enforced social contracts), exchange, trade, etc . – in fact, the whole edifice of human achievement – is prototypically male in every single instance in history, Maria Gimbutas notwithstanding.

Women do these things but they’re welcomed as exceptions. Professional men love women who enter their world.

(as equals).

Actually, women and men truly are complementary: but it’s a much rarer woman than man who deserves moral accolades. And a much rarer man who talks sense when the chips are down.

And some women love this. They literally get wet to it. My SO literally gives the field to me in some areas, while I absolutely defer to her in others. I recognize some of my weaknesses.

The fact that men are insanely violent is also good and bad: Good when directed out, at the enemies of the woman; bad when directed inward.

Raping is also not necessarily bad for a particular woman. It may expand the opportunities she has to exploit other women: look at how many women assist rapists and killers with outstanding glee. They revel in it, sometimes. Sociopathy knows no gender, really.

War is also a wonderfully good thing for (some) women. NAzi German women were among the most enthusiastic Nazis: for very good, sound, self-interested reasons.

Infantilizing women denies their true femininity, in all its glory: Good and bad.

(Good and bad is also largely situational and perspective: the victim always sees it as bad. A woman who tools me is Evil to me; perhaps this is just my perspective).

Wo,en want prostitution gone for purely self-interested reasons.

OIf you introduced legislation that said you needed signed, consen- filled forms with regular checkups and psych exams, youd still get most women saying No Prostitution.

No matter how you cleaned it up, it Demeans Womanhood (Reduces Female Power).

It really depends on how you define “morality”. At the turn on the century, the maternal feminists felt that women’s principal role as the nurturer of infants and children made them morally superior because they acted on an ethic of love and care, rather than straightforward acquisition (aka capitalism). I don’t necessarily agree with this, but this is one way of framing women’s morality as superior.

Women’s studies takes up the definition of morality as a major topic. Carol Gillgan’s In A Different Voice springs immediately to mind.

Back to the main issue, though, your average woman hates prostitutes because they lower the sexual value of women as a group, especially those that land in the left tail of the attractiveness/sexual libido curve. Attractive women who enjoy sex have no problem attracting potential mates, and are therefore not threatened by professionals.

Now add to the mix the cult of narcissism and self-entitlement that most young women have been raised in. Not only do they think women are superior to men, they actively think men SUCK, and won’t hesitate to inform men of this fact. See http://www.Jezebel.com

But they still need men. They want their money, their attention, their sperm and their assets after divorce. Legalize prostitution, and suddenly men do not have to put up with this bullshit EVER. Yes, prosititutes want your money. But they give you something in exchange for that. Sex, and for the really great ones, affirmation. They acknowledge your vitality as a human being and a man.

How do I know? Because that’s what I do, too. What the equal-rights feminists will never understand is that in that transactional space between money and sex lies the whole heart of humanity. Men and women are so different, morally and ethically, but together, we create something utterly intoxicating.

Prostitutes prime men to respond and celebrate their essential maleness. In many ways, the professional woman IS the heart of humanity. Think of what a different world we would live in if all men, when they turned 18 (or even younger) went down to the local brothel and were trained by professional women in the arts of pleasure?

Yes. Please.

And what if all women had the legitimate option to be one of the professionals? At forty, I could certainly steer a lot of 18 year olds in the right direction, and wouldn’t that be a pleasant way to spend the afternoons before the kids get home from school?

But when you are in the process of demonizing and attempting to stamp out maleness and masculinity, then legalizing prostitution in pretty much the last thing you want to do.

I think it’s because I’m a housewife that I see how professional sex workers are my allies. I would rather, a MILLION TIMES rather that my husband pay a fair rate to a professional than hook up with one of his students or colleagues.

Andrea, you’re eventually going to get awfully tired of a bunch of whores telling you how much we love you. 😀

The only thing I would like to add is that the attitude of what you called the “maternal feminists” (great term; is it yours?) was also the philosophy of William Moulton Marston, inventor of the polygraph and creator of Wonder Woman. Of his creation Marston wrote, “there isn’t enough love in the male organism to run the planet peacefully. What women presently lack is the dominance or self assertive power to put over and enforce her love desires. I have given (Wonder Woman) the dominant force but have kept her loving.” That’s what the “magic lasso” really is; the ability to bind people with love, to reform the evil and strengthen the weak. Marston also wrote a book (in the 1930s, mind you) advising women to use sex to reform their husbands’ bad habits like drinking and gambling. Now that’s real feminism! 🙂

Wonder Woman comics from the ’40s are truly awesome, and full of great lesbian and bondage (and lesbian bondage) undertones. But after Marston’s death in 1948 National Comics (now DC) didn’t know what to do with her, and she entered a long, slow decline which resulted in her becoming nothing more than a joke by the mid-’60s. She was then turned into an Emma Peel clone for a few years (I am not making this up) before finally getting excellent again for a few years in the ’70s under the management of the legendary Julius Schwartz. But in the late ’70s she again started to decline and I understand she’s been very hit-and-miss since then (I stopped collecting comics in 1980) because everyone’s afraid to bring her back to her BDSM roots.

Wonder Woman was my hero. I had a full length life size poster of Lynda Carter in full WW costume hanging above my bed as a child growing up. Did I care what the underlying tones of her creation were? No. Did I care what she represented from a feminist or political standpoint or what her underlying ‘theme’ was? No. Still don’t. Still love her. 🙂

I’ve heard of the Emma Peel thing, though I haven’t read any of those (saw a few pages online). I suspect that WW influenced my beloved Sailor Senshi. The almost matching tiaras are a clue (Lynda Carter’s version even used hers as a throwing weapon at least once).

Carter did an excellent job with this character. It helps that she looked the part, but it was more than that. She could be strong and very pro-woman, but wasn’t anti-man (for all that she found men amusing and confusing). Lyndsey Wagoner’s bionic woman, Jaime Sommers, was much the same way.

I’m trying to think of any prostitutionally-inclined TV or comic book characters from the 60s through 80s, and am not coming up with anything.

@Sailor B: I was just telling my husband last week that I plan to do a post soon (kind of OT but it is my blog, after all) on female comic book characters I looked up to as a lass, including Hawkgirl, Zatanna and Alanna of Ranagar. 🙂

Andrea, you’re eventually going to get awfully tired of a bunch of whores telling you how much we love you.

Isn’t she just.

Brilliantly stated, Andrea. I’ll take you one further. The reason neo-feminists despise housewives is that women who fulfill their needs within a nuclear family have no chink to penetrate, ergo no leverage for neo-feminist control. Also, they put the lie to the notion that in order for women to be successful, they have to be men.

The first is not so dissimilar to the hatred of prostitution. The prostitute is largely immune to the cycle of female dependency by her financial independence. Blandishments of a dependent victimhood lack the ring of truth to a woman who relies only on herself.

Both the housewife and the whore use their femininity as nature intends. The similarity stops there. The housewife is a dependent being; maybe voluntarily so, perhaps temporarily so, in healthy circumstances it is more accurately a co-dependent state, but the dependent aspect is inescapable. The prostitute is an independent creature – the anti-housewife. She requires men – not one man, but many men – and her touch is seductive, intimate and, most importantly, fleeting.

Both use the fascination of men, the art of making men feel whole, as the vehicle to their own success. Neo-feminists would have us reject both men and femininity, although I’m buggered if I know why they think a world of genderless eunuchs and “wy-men” is going to make anyone happier.

In a way, that’s good; the more extreme the tyranny becomes, the sooner the revolution follows. And the more brutal the repression the overlords inflict, the more brutal their treatment by the revolutionaries. The Swedish neofeminists are digging their own graves.

Let it all collapse. Bring the revolution. I’m certainly frightened of both, but the natural progression of the path we’re on frightens me more.

Maggie,

Every tyrant fears his people, because he knows that in the act of being a tyrant, he creates the enemies who will bring about his downfall. (That is a very loose paraphrasing of god-knows-who. The words stuck but the name didn’t.)

Also, “The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle’s own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction.” ~ Aesop

I just love reading the stuff you write. I know this is an old post so I am not even sure you still are on this blog but let me say you are cool beans, the cat’s meow, a mighty awesome bitch and I have to say if I was a man I would marry you in a minute. Or a lesbian. But I am neither but definitely like your style .

As a blog I admire in so many ways, I have to say that too much that is said here is far too self-satisfied and embarrassingly certain. Appropriated terminology is heavily criticized, yet equally meaningless terminology is dropped into its place with no sign of comic irony.

“What the equal-rights feminists will never understand is that in that transactional space between money and sex lies the whole heart of humanity.”

I’m sorry Andrea, but having read most of your comments, you come off as an ideological faddist. How many more feminist truths are you going to shuffle through before discarding the false-concept of truth/certainty? If the day comes wherein I view my relationship with my wife (or anyone else) within these narrow-minded sterile terms, I will consider myself inexorably soul-dead.

“The whole idea of “left” and “right” is just window-dressing anyhow; the true political division is collectivist vs. individualist.”

I agree completely. However, just about every post/comment I’ve read herein is pointedly collectivist, with little acknowledgment of Transcendence, Love, Art, Deviation, Flexibility or Fluidity: Women are thus and so . . . ; Men are thus and so . . . ; Sex is thus and so . . .

“On the other hand, all the things we associate with civilization – art, music, math, science, order, laws, regulations, social contracts (enforced social contracts), exchange, trade, etc . – in fact, the whole edifice of human achievement – is stereotypically male in every single instance in history . . . The wonderful thing about humans is that we’re individuals.”

Jeez, how consistent. Google Hypatia (350 – 415 c.e.) or Paula Rego or Eve. Seeing as how you possess such extra-terrestrial omniscience, can you give me next week’s lotto numbers?

I obviously can’t answer your replies to other people’s comments, so I’ll only address mine. General statements about the way things tend to be have nothing to do with collectivism; to say “women tend to be smaller than men” is true but does not mean all women are the same size nor preclude the exception to the rule. Nor does it imply that we should control the growth of girls so they are not larger, nor inject them with growth hormones so they aren’t.

General facts are just that. Women, men, sex, humans, etc do tend to have certain characteristics whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. It isn’t “bad”, it isn’t “good” and it doesn’t need to be “changed”. It simply is what it is, and the existence of exceptions does not invalidate generalities, nor does the existence of the general require the exception to be eradicated.

I admire your bravery with this post! I LOVE how you bring up transcendence. WONDERFUL, seriously! Just curious, what do you think of the belief that everything should be as free as possible? By free I mean with as little cost involved as possible. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been so sick and tired of the “everything should cost”; “everything is a commodity” mentality since I was a teenager that I could scream my head off. I found this last week and was cheering: “You know what Bill’s doing now, he’s going for the righteous indignation dollar, that’s a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we’ve done research, huge market. He’s doing a good thing.” I’m not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a dollar sign on every thing on this planet!”-this is from comedian Bill Hicks. I heard it on 1 of the podcasts I listen to and looked it up. I took the swear words out as 1 of them I hate to even look at. Other than that, it’s the same as how I found it online. When you talk about how men are, how women are, etc., why can’t we BREAK these “rules”? Seriously? Or choose to follow rules that many hate? Why not? OK, am going on here, but want to thank you again for bringing up these other things (art, etc.).

Yes, we definitely have a kindred spirit. I too am weary of the extensive commodification of every aspect of our existence/spirit. I think this is unfortunate, in that reading interactions or phenomena in too literal a way robs the interaction itself of the unquantifiable, the magic, the x-factor, that which transcends.

A good example for me is the way Religion/the Bible are shown such irreverence by the very same people who claim it holds The Truth. I am an atheist, but I also love Theology and The Bible. I see The Bible as a great work of literature that has been with us a long time, a thing which endures — a work of art. However, when it is read literally, as literal Truth, the magic is drained out completely and the work dies — unfortunately, people then use it to beat down those who deviate from convention. Herein the wisdom of the bible is reduced to a trivial transaction wherein the only thing achieved is various degrees of damage: God Hates Fags, you will pay for this in hell!

David, the way I state that is “the Bible is true but it isn’t factual.” When fundamentalists try to represent the Bible as being a literal, factual narrative they deny its poetry and its implications for the human psyche.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Maggie! This is an example of why I find your blog to be so refreshingly intelligent. Cherry-picking metaphors is sacred ground for poets, and as you suggest, the Bible is terrific poetry. We don’t hear this sentiment nearly enough — this is unfortunate because, as you also suggest, this is a work of art that could greatly compliment and inform our psyche.

My two favorite scriptural verses are from the very beginning and nearly the end; the first is Genesis 3:8, “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day…” it’s such a clearly ancient passage, depicting as it does a very anthropomorphic god with feet and a voice and the ability to enjoy late-afternoon breezes. The other is Matthew 6:28-30, “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?” Note only is that passage lovely, it can be read as a repudiation of nudity taboos.

Ok, this is getting strangely serendipitous. I have that first line of scripture tattooed on the upper part of my left arm under another tattoo of a Max Beckmann painting. One of my art school professors shared that line with me in a philosophy of religion class — I was stunned at it’s minimalist beauty. It’s also shown up from time to time in my paintings and short films.

I’m a Christian who thinks the Bible is a wonderful piece of literature also. I’ve always felt that way even before I accepted Christ as an older teenager. But, I also see it as my life guide for all things spiritual. I’m kind of scared to post this, but I guess it’s another part of me “coming out” with so many more things over time: I believe it’s inerrant especially in how it tells believers how to live plus prophecy. Please don’t think this means I’m going to start ordering anyone around on here in regards to this OR anywhere else. If you don’t think it’s inerrant that’s your business just like it’s mine to believe it is. Thanks for listening.

Reincarnation can’t be “proven” or disproven in the terms of science, any more than science can prove or disprove the existence of the human soul. However, there are some broadly-accepted religions and religious philosophies that accept reincarnation, and the transmigration of the “I” (that which is aware of being aware) from life to life.

All I can give is my own anecdotal evidence. I was terribly allergic to feather pillows throughout my childhood and youth. One day I was doing some past-life progression work, targeted toward asthma, when I found a past death in which I was smothered with a feather pillow – for being caught in bed with my lover – by my husband.

@Kelly: Well, it’s hard to unlearn that kind of stuff once it’s been crammed into your head. That’s why I am careful to make a distinction between truth and facts when talking about religion or philosophy.

Truth in a philosophical sense can be relative; to use the example I gave Laura reincarnation is true for me, that is I have faith in it and live assuming it’s true. But for an atheist, snuffed out like a candle at death is “true” in that sense and to a Christian, heaven and hell are “true”. These things are questions that strike at the heart of what it means to be human so of course they’re relative.

Facts, on the other hand, cannot be relative; they exist independent of the observer and can be reproduced by other experimenters who are unaware of the first results. The speed of light is the same everywhere and is not subject to interpretation; it is a fact.

The problem lies in Marxism and the other “-isms” deriving from it, which for the first time since the rise of the scientific method denied the existence of objective fact without referring to a supernatural being. The concept of a “godless religion” (which Marxism, neofeminism, Afrocentrism, etc really are) took people so much by surprise that scholars who would have resisted the infiltration of a traditional religion let these secular religions take over their departments, and the governments they have infiltrated (for example communist countries for Marxism and Scandinavian countries for neofeminism) are every bit as irrational and ideologically-driven as the staunchest theocracy.

Thus, nonsense like “facts are relative” has been taught in American schools for two generations now and it’s going to take a while to excise the cancer. Those who have been taught it are all over society and wake up only slowly, so I try to be understanding if they show signs of awakening. 🙂

We know how I feel about that kind of bullshit. *clears throat* Fuck off*clears throat*

Appropriated terminology? We’re supposed to make up our own fucking language? Geez. Who knew? All terminology is appropriated, asshat. Did you want to tell us that the sky is blue? That cows moo?

Oh wait a minute, now. We simple folks here still embrace truth/certainty. Cows don’t moo. That’s such a human-centric definition of the expression that each individual cow makes. “You’ve appropriated terminology, you bitch!” Truth is so individual is cannot realistically be considered a useful concept.

For example, I can no longer recall how to calculate the radius of a circle, so for all intents and purposes, pi is whatever I say it is. The truth of pi does not exist. Pi does not exist. That’s just appropriated terminology, anyways. What the fuck did those Greek bastards ever contribute anyways?

And don’t even start with your democracy bullshit. That’s just ideological faddism.

Apparently, the day of being soul-dead has arrived, David. Said without a hint of comic irony.

Well, you know there are always going to be prudes, busybodies and control freaks for as long as there are humans. What we need to do is make it more difficult for them to get their way, and then we can tolerate their screaming and poop-throwing because we’ll know it’s just impotent frustration.

I’m not being passive aggressive or disingenuous; I do like this blog, very much. Is the criticism herein a one-way street? I have difficulty with non-fluidity and certainty — that which, in my view, negates transcendence. If we are going to speak in generalities, we should make it clear that we are doing so — I don’t see a lot of that here. Too much is couched in terms of Truth and there are too often various disciplines that are conflated with one another — at least for my taste. Yet, I applaud and agree with most of the ideas here. I’ve also learned quite a bit.

By the way: *clears throat* Fuck off*clears throat* — that is funny! The last thing I am certain about, is that I am not a fool — there is probably at least 51% proof that I am.

“All terminology is appropriated, asshat” — this is also funny; but I don’t really agree that all terminology is appropriated, or has to be.

“What the fuck did those Greek bastards ever contribute anyways?” — quite a bit, actually. But it’s nothing to get angry about.

“Women, men, sex, humans, etc do tend to have certain characteristics whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not.” I partly agree with this. I think Nature has certain characteristics, but when we start to whittle down to definite categories, it begins to feel, at least to me, as if we are no longer discussing characteristics, but in-group/out-group dynamics which I think goes back to the idea of collectivism or collectivist politics — which I am not a fan of.

“You’ve appropriated terminology, you bitch!” — again, very funny. And, ok, I fully concede that I am as guilty as the next person of appropriating terminology — refer to the “fool” I mentioned above.

when we start to whittle down to definite categories, it begins to feel, at least to me, as if we are no longer discussing characteristics, but in-group/out-group dynamics which I think goes back to the idea of collectivism or collectivist politics — which I am not a fan of.

I think I see where you’re coming from, David; I reckon whores do tend to develop a “circle the wagons” mentality in every culture in which we’re marginalized or persecuted, and with neofeminist policies being enacted as law all over, and those of us who resist being labelled as suffering from “denial” or even mental illness, can you really blame us? The only other places on the internet where whores can socialize as we can here are hooker boards, and in those girls tend to self-censor to avoid offending potential customers. So I guess we do tend to come across as promoting an in-group/out-group dynamic. It’s not really meant to exclude anyone, at least not in my mind. 🙂

Certainly not. This is what free speech looks like. You exercised your free speech. Some of us found you less than eloquent and your points ill-advised, and used our free speech to tell you so.

Expecting to criticize someone while no one should be able to criticize you back sounds like what you were thinking would happen. That would be a one-way street.
(Although, I was probably castigating rather than criticizing.)

I have difficulty with the intellectually devoid concept that there is no Truth. Truth isn’t fluid. Transcendent yes; it certainly transcends even the silliest perceptions of it’s fluidity. Perceptions change but that has absolutely no bearing on whether a thing is or is not. If I go blind the sky is still blue even though I can’t see it. If I die you do not cease to exist. An apple is never a Volvo.

Much in the same way that terminology is appropriated. If terminology wasn’t appropriated we’d all be wandering around spouting gibberish and there would be no rational communication whatsoever. Imagine trying to remember which non appropriated gibberish term every person you know uses for everything around you. I might call an apple an orange, Emily might call it a Volvo, Maggie might call it a window, Brandy might call it a computer, Andrea might call it cyanide; which could turn into a major issue in and of itself if I on the off chance appropriated “cyanide” to be the word for actual cyanide when all Andrea meant to tell me was to eat a fucking apple.

If terminology wasn’t appropriated it wouldn’t be terminology!

Are a penis and a vagina different enough to categorize or is gender another inescapable reality that you percieve as fluid?

Well let me first say that I do appreciate your view and the divinity that underwrites it — I fully accept that your view is divine; that is, divine for you — something I don’t want to deny for anyone.

However, I never said that I don’t believe in Truth, or that Truth doesn’t exist. What I see no evidence for is The Truth/Absolutes/Certainties. If there exist an Absolute Truth, I am unaware of it. And if there is an absolute truth that exists, I doubt that our species is capable of comprehending it. Even when we reference the speed of light, the truth we accept about this phenomena is temporal — no credible scientist, at least none I’ve read or talked to has ever suggested anything to the contrary, and would be foolish to do so.

“Truth isn’t fluid” — I know of no evidence that would suggest you are correct here.

“If I go blind the sky is still blue even though I can’t see it” — well yes, in a very provincial sense. Scientifically or philosophically speaking, the sky is anything but blue. We just happen to have, through evolutionary chance, eyes that detect some of the particular light that reflects off the gas that surrounds the earth — in this case, blue. Our ability to recognize visible light is alarmingly slim when compared to the entire scope of visible light.

“Denying reality might, according to your perception, absolve you of its responsibility but guess what…your perception means nothing. Reality cannot be denied. Existence exists.” I don’t agree with this at all. Being certain about what is and what isn’t, is in my view, avoiding responsibility: the responsibility to continually take in new data and change your mind/view as you digest it — in other words: staying fluid and temperate. In this sense, I fully side with Hannah Arendt, but I do so without being so arrogant as to deny the divine nature that informs some of us that one plus one ALWAYS equals two. If this equation is divine to you, than it is indeed divine — however, not necessarily for me.

“I might call an apple an orange, Emily might call it a Volvo” — Ok, but what would a being from the V612 star call it? Probably none of these, if it has the ability to detect or recognize it at all. In that case, what is it? Is it an orange? Or is it a collection of sub-atomic particles and the electro-magnetic force? Or is it essentially empty space? In my view, the discomfort these type of questions pose, and the resistance to acknowledging them, is an cost some of us are unwilling to pay for our gift of consciousness — the kind of thinking that leads people to say with absolute certainty: It’s Adam & Eve, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!

“Are a penis and a vagina different enough to categorize or is gender another inescapable reality that you perceive as fluid?” — first off, gender is a word I really don’t care for. Is our sex something I perceive as fluid? Very much so. What should we call sex when Nature conflates it physically or genetically? What do we call species that are both male and female? Or species wherein the sex can and does switch?

The overall point I was really trying to make on my earlier comment is that politically and spiritually I AM 100% ON YOUR SIDE — but, I would caution that we don’t become the mirror image of those who are CERTAIN that prostitutes/sex workers/whores/pornography/homosexuality (pick a term) is morally wrong — something to be criminalized, something to be eradicated. If we have the courage to discard false hierarchies (literal Platonic forms), we can then have the courage and wisdom to let those who differ live in peace and accept every form as divine — which I do. You Kelly, are divine, you are transcendent!

In this sense, I fully side with Hannah Arendt, but I do so without being so arrogant as to deny the divine nature that informs some of us that one plus one ALWAYS equals two. If this equation is divine to you, than it is indeed divine — however, not necessarily for me.

This is false. One plus one equals two is based on knowledge which is a posteriori, dependent on experience and empirical evidence. One plus one equals two is not “faith-based”. It is a proof.

Absolutely. Decriminalization is nothing else but the institutional recognition of the fact that a woman’s body and sexuality are her OWN business and not that of the state; THAT is the real meaning of feminism!

Can’t the meaning in feminism also include things like: equal treatment on the job for women and men, women choosing to keep up their job skills, etc., so they’ll never be dependent on anyone if their parents/spouse, etc. die without being made fun of for it, equal pay for the same job done by a man or woman and women who choose not to work not being made fun of either?

@ Laura Can’t the meaning in feminism also include things like: equal treatment on the job for women and men, women choosing to keep up their job skills, etc., so they’ll never be dependent on anyone if their parents/spouse, etc. die without being made fun of for it, equal pay for the same job done by a man or woman and women who choose not to work not being made fun of either?

I think feminism has done a great job of ensuring all those things, Laura.

What is has done a SHIT job at is respecting women who choose either independence or dependence, and link that choice specifically to men. Housewives and hookers. Our livelihoods depend on men. A housewife links her fortunes to one man, (or men in succession), while a hooker links her fortunes to lots of men (and it doesn’t take epic levels of genius to see why that might be a great choice!).

One way or another, it gives men power over women. Power they are pretty much helpless to resist, but power nonetheless.

Ultimately, we want to do two things: protect the helpless from being exploited and 2) respect the right of autonomous individuals to determine their own lives.

Criminalizing prostitution accepts that ALL women are helpless and exploited. It DENIES all women the right to determine their own lives.

Are some prosititutes terribly victimized and exploited? Yes. Are some housewives beaten and abused? Yes. Do we outlaw marriage?

So why should prostitution be outlawed? As a woman with a Master’s Degree (and far from the only one here), it truly ANGERS me that I fucking GAVE away what I could have CHARGED for, and thereby paid for my education.

The sexual powers of young women (and young men) are potent forces in society. It makes far more sense to harness that energy and turn it to good use (tax revenues, anyone?) than to fight against it.

And criminalizing men rather than women is the neofeminist dream. Just as rape laws are used to excuse women (I was drunk! He raped me!) and hold men responsible (It doesn’t matter how drunk you were! No means no! And yes you have to read her fucking mind!), these laws turn intelligent, autonomous, capable women into mewling infants in need of constant monitoring and supervision.

Those are both examples of legalization, Tim, not decriminalization. The latter would look EXACTLY like what we have now, except A) no pogroms against hookers or clients, and B) there would be legal brothels, zoned just as strip clubs and adult bookstores are. Simple.

@ Tim: ” I don’t think I would enter a legally recognized brothel, simply because I wouldn’t want people seeing me enter a brothel.

“What kinds of choices would a john like me have, under the decrim model, assuming there are johns who want their business kept on the down-low?”

I truly don’t want to be an asshat about this, Tim, and I am scarcely qualified to talk, but:

Were prostitution explicitly legalized, and free choice in sexual matters (including prostitution) the law of the land, why would you need to be so sensitive about being seen entering a brothel?

(Actually I have one answer. I spent a couple of years in seminary, before finally recognizing that I did NOT have the Call. But if a churchgoer spotted his pastor visiting a brothel, it would certainly cast doubts about, ahem, “His Holiness’ holiness.”)

But the solution to your concern is even easier, and again, I’m going on the New Zealand model. Escort services specialize in being discreet about it … and with decriminalization, neither you nor she would need to worry about police stings.

(Of course if that was your fantasy, you could probably ask the escort to dress in a suitable costume … and bring a riding-crop to sting you where you itch for it ….)

I’m wondering: those who think that some women hate prostitution for certain reasons (or even 1 reason) have you ever asked these women about this? Where did you get this information? Is it from reading articles, books, etc.? Thanks in advance for any answers on this.

To be honest, I hate that there’s some ASS-umptions out there about women who hate prostitution. It reminds me of the assumptions that are made about many groups of people. The reasons some women don’t want any part of it don’t apply to the whole group. Thanks for listening.

Actually, I’ll reproduce it here. If this is a copyright violation, then Maggie will take it down.

Statement on Prostitution

REAL WOMEN OF CANADA believes that prostitution, defined as the selling of sexual activity for money, has many harmful effects on the prostitutes themselves, clients and their families, the business milieu in which this occurs, and society as a whole.

As a prostitute sells sex as a service to a customer, the dignity of women and men is demeaned, allowing the customer to buy the right to treat another person as an object. It has nothing to do with love or a personal relationship, and removes the dignity and bonding of the sexual act from its context of a loving relationship.

As well, prostitution adversely affects the environment in which its solicitation occurs, whether on downtown streets or in residential areas. Neighbourhood residents are made fearful of walking their streets, and neighbourhoods are no longer safe for children or youth, who may become targets for such solicitation. Property values drop, traffic problems develop and the area often becomes noisy and dangerous. The prevalence of alcohol, drug abuse and crime amongst pimps and prostitutes is also a danger to themselves and others.

Prostitutes are extremely vulnerable members of society, open to personal and sexual degradation, exploitation and violence from their customers, pimps, and businesses from whose premises they work. They have no security or job training to sustain them in later years, and often their physical and mental health is at risk.

We are particularly concerned about the effect of prostitution on young children and teenagers, giving them the impression that sexuality is merely recreation and sport, and not a responsible, loving expression best obtained within the desirable and permanent context of a conjugal relationship. It encourages teenagers to view prostitution as a temporary way of financial survival, rather than working to acquire marketable work skills through the more permanent route of education and employment.

These vulnerable children are often ìthrow-away kidsî and we must increase the capacity of rehabilitative centres to rescue them.

REAL WOMEN OF CANADA recommends:

1. Since the act of prostitution itself is not an offense under the Criminal Code, the latter should be amended to prohibit prostitution itself, as well as prohibit the activities surrounding prostitution; i.e. keeping a common bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution, etc.

2. Strict penalties for those who use children as prostitutes.

We are also concerned that measures be adopted to rehabilitate those men and women currently working as prostitutes. Sheltered housing, counseling, job training and education are all necessary to help these persons regain a sense of dignity, self-esteem and purpose in their lives, and return them to the mainstream of society.

Dear emilyhemingway, I’m NOT a neofeminist as it’s defined on this blog. I guess I’m what you’d call a feminist from the time BEFORE so many man and sex hating BITCHES got involved in it. What would that be called? To be honest, I’ve done barely any reading on feminism.

Laura, Maggie calls what you have describe “archeofeminist.” Knowing you as I do, I think you qualify as such. As I once observed (though I didn’t take part in) an archeological dig, this is just one more indication that we belong together.

To be specific, Sailor, and archeofeminist is one who recognizes that women were plenty powerful all along and that the illusion of powerlessness was largely created by bad laws and social practices in various cultures throughout history, most recently in the Renaissance-19th century. One who supports the early feminist principles of the ’60s and ’70s, including free choice for women and freedom of sex work without the “social construction of gender” fable, but doesn’t go quite as far as an archeofeminist, would be a “true second-wave feminist”. 🙂

Maggie, you may be familiar with the Wife of Bath’s Tale from the Canterbury Tales. Anyway, here is a story of a woman who is plenty powerful, and this in the 14th Century!

Why do so many neofeminists gloss over this – women were powerful, they have always controlled reproduction -barring rape, of course. Sure, they weren’t military commanders and such, but that’s easily explainable: women don’t aspire to lead armies. But the Wife of Bath had men wrapped around her finger. lt’s simply another form of power.

Ah yes, I remember the Wife of Bath well. Medieval women were actually largely equal with men and often had their own incomes; it was not until the Renaissance that the pendulum swung back toward a more male-dominant system again.

Laura, there’s been a TREMENDOUS amount written about it, going back centuries. The reasons ordinary women dislike prostitutes are pretty exoteric because they’re mostly honest about them; it’s the neofeminists who usually try to hide their true motivations in rhetoric such as Andrea excerpted above.

I want to address the “REAL WOMEN OF CANADA” letter Andrea posted to make a point.

It reads, in part: “As a prostitute sells sex as a service to a customer… it has nothing to do with love or a personal relationship, and removes the dignity and bonding of the sexual act from its context of a loving relationship.”

I grew up Catholic, and this is the exact same argument the church leaders used to use to claim masturbation was sinful and would send you to hell. This is why this post is called “creeping rot” — these ideas are somehow now seeping into our laws.

To those who don’t think this will have a ripple effect remember that no matter how much power you give people who want state control, they want more. Give them lower speed limits and then they want speed humps…then speed cameras. Give them the illegalization of prostitution and they’ll next come to your bedroom and confiscate your porn.

To further address the quote above, since when does the state get to make the rule that all sex needs to be “in the context of a loving relationship?” And who is to determine the quality of that relationship. Say I’m married 20 years and just sort of like my wife, not love her anymore — should sex then be “illegal” between us? This is where this is headed.

And finally, the bit about prostitution having “nothing to do” with a personal relationship is a joke, considering the myriad of “relationships” that are prostitute-john in all but name. Yeah, Tiger Woods’ “relationships” are legit and based on total love, affection and equality. Not.

That kind of power increase is a bonus – men don’t mind it. From the rich courtesans of Rome, Persia or Greece, even China, sung about in song and fable, men celebrate this kind of power. They’re in awe of it.

It’s other *WOMEN* who hate this power. As usual, to really bring down a woman, you absolutely require another woman. Men never spew invective and recrimination like women can.

The reason it suffers prohibition is because middle-class women who want power over their men (hence the need to control their man’s sexuality) have union-busting women.

If you examine the social motivations and the conversations of women, this is always the inevitable conclusion.

Nothing else explains the levels of resentment and disgust. Resentment is high on the list.

If you parse what’s said carefully, prohibitionists (almost always women, with a few Yes Men) never sound like they’re hell-bent on ending Injustice to (specific) Women.

They sound like they’re bent on ending “insults to Femininity” or vague notions of Misogyny. There are virtually no advocates for prostitutes who actually work with prostitutes and who also advocate for prohibitionism.

If there as real concern for actual prostitutes among prohibitionists, there’d be more social services for prostitutes and less harassment of their means of making a living.

To any neutral observer (and I don’t use prostitutes so I’m pretty neutral); this is what I see:

A lot of busybodies telling other people what to do.

Whenever I see this, I always wonder: What motivates them? To be a busybody, in almost every other case, there’s a motivation for personal advantage. What’s the advantage here?

“If you parse what’s said carefully, prohibitionists (almost always women, with a few Yes Men) never sound like they’re hell-bent on ending Injustice to (specific) Women.”

I see Prohibitionism as largely a male enterprise. Patriarchy can’t be maintained unless the “sexual women” are kept separate from the “breeding women”. Meaning the Whore/Madonna complex. In the modern age this is done through prohibitionism.

The reason why you see women at the “forefront” of this movement is to disguise the fact that it’s a male-led and controlled enterprise.

But the goal for the men who control the movement is different from the women who are the public face of it–it’s not to actually get rid of prostitution–it’s mainly to keep sex workers socially isolated from non-sex workers.

Susan, I think you’re bang on with that. I have pointed out many times that the staunchest repression of whores occurs under patriarchal government, but they never get rid of us completely; it’s always just enough to keep us in the shadows or confined to certain districts where we can’t “contaminate” the “good women”. The clearest proof of this lies in the fact that escort services are legal; the overlords don’t want to eradicate prostitution, just to keep individual prostitutes from getting too “uppity”, so in stings they nearly always prune the branches but leave the trees alone.

The “Swedish Model” was certainly invented by neofeminists; its illogic and transparent bias have their stink all over. But it was male legislators who recognized the brilliant potential for subjugating the masses inherent in it; they leave the whores alone so as to keep prices down, then trim the customer base so as to force them to lower prices and expand services to stay competitive. And more laws means it’s easier to destroy political opponents or peasants who get out of line.

In their perverse hatred of their own femininity, the neofeminists unwittingly become the tools of the “patriarchy” they vilify so much.

Yes, Maggie. And the irony of it is this–if the Farleys and the Dines and the Bindels of the world ever got close to eliminating prostitution–meaning if the “pussy supply” started seriously dwindling as a result of their efforts, their male sponsors would turn on them in a hot second. I think that Farley and Bindel are aware of this.

Especially Bindel. Her behavior has become increasing “pimpish” over the years, as those poor UK sex worker groups can attest to.

Well, Bindel has confessed to being a fan of Snoop Dog the Rapper, he of the misogynistic, pimpin’ lyrics. You can google both Julie Bindel and Snoop Dog to find out where they are related. Also the way she goes to Harlot’s Parlour and other UK sex worker blogs to crap all over Douglas Fox (and completely ignore the women) because in her mind he’s a pimp and she’s got to show herself the bigger pimp.

And Farley because of the way she treated Jill Brenneman when she was still part of their movement, and that she once complained that the five-star hotel-room she was provided for at one time wasn’t good enough for her.

Now I realize that that this is not scientific proof, but it does make for good gossip, doesn’t it?

Maggie, I think patriarchal, woman-hating men are oddly allied with man-hating women. In either case, they’re the only ones who want to control sexuality: The women want to control male sexuality, especially their own males; the men want to segregate and control female sexuality to keep it on tap.

It’s a perfect storm and collusion of interests.

Neofeminists have come full circle in their quest for “freedom” from Maleness, and reached this point, the point at which their manipulation of men to control men merges with the men whose manipulation of women to control women are flush together.

I think Susan and I were arguing at cross-purposes, in retrospect. I think we’re both right.

I think one of my gifts (thanks in large part to my late, lamented cousin Jeff) is the ability to see evil in women as readily as I see it in men (but not more so as some women do). I have said before that humans in government (mostly male but with a few women nowadays) are not normal; they are among the least-evolved humans on Earth. The biggest mistake feminists ever made was in believing that the actions of men in government are typical of ALL men, when in fact they are not; this has in turn generated the subsidiary fallacy that women in government are a good thing for women in the population, which is observably untrue.

Is this a certain person I last heard from around Christmas? If so, welcome back! 🙂

I traumatized the children at Wal-Mart just over an hour ago in a embroidered pink ankle-length wraparound rayon skirt with a matching halter top; my belly, back and shoulders were almost entirely exposed! 😀

Actually it sounds pretty hot, and I’ll tell you something: the kids liked it. As Xuxa Meneghel pointed out when it was suggested that she was too too attractive to host a children’s show, “Children like pretty things.”

Children are the most openly judgemental creatures on the earth. Humans love all pretty things & children have not internalized those silly social norms that bid us to deny these biases. Adults who have internalized that content themselves with staring discreetly.

Now, I’m a very judgemental person; I am quite aware that the moment I lay eyes upon you, I’ll have an impression of you, I’ll even attribute some positive & negative qualities to you and I favour pretty people with that little tell-tale sparkle of smartness in their eyes. Everyone else may earn my approval over time. But that’s not something I started doing when I grew up, I always did it.

My mother tells me that even as a baby I would prefer being handled by the prettier females in the vicinity. If I was crying for no apparent reason, all she had to do was position me so that I could see the prettiest girl in the room and I would transform into the sweetest little angel womankind ever laid their eyes upon. But if a not-so-pretty girl got her paws on me when I had already seen the best one in the room, I would scream to wake the dead 🙂

Well, I don’t speak either Portuguese or Spanish, so I’ve only seen her US show, other than a few YouTube clips. But Xuxa is a hottie, and a great human being (also, American feminists seem to hate her, which is icing).

In order to fight against the imposition of the “Swedish Model” the proponents of it need to be challenged to produce hard evidence regarding “trafficking”.

There are countless anecdotal stories of women entering a country illegally and then being forced into prostitution by the gang who smuggled them in or arranged false papers but few hard facts to back up these stories. Not surprisingly, though, it’s the idea of helpless, innocent young women being forced into prostitution against their will that gains support for adopting the Swedish Model.

However, I have the impression that people outside the sex industry have swallowed the propaganda about “sex trafficking” hook, line and sinker – and that, surely, is something that needs to be addressed.

The “sex trafficking scandal industry” is founded on this basic core belief that “bought’n sex is eeeeee-villl” and the buyers and sellers should be punished. But this belief is T-boned by the belief that “women are victims and can’t be blamed.”

How did these “poor victimized women” become sex-workers? Well, if they had volunteered they couldn’t be victims, could they? But they’re part of the “victim gender”, so we have to trump up some way that they WERE victimized.

Hey, look at how many of them came into the country without proper papers! They came in under the radar … Aha! They were smuggled in for this work!

They were TRAFFICKED!!! Those dirty rotten patriarchs brought them in. It’s the evil Patriarchy at work here!

How many? They dust off some old estimate, uncaring that it’s what a friend of mine, a Marine on the CENTCOM general staff, called “ROMA data” (he explained the acronym as “Right Out of My A$$”) … adjust for increases in population, the latest estimates on undocumented immigration, and a fudge factor to make the numbers add up to something truly scandalous…!

“I know what’s right,” they say, “don’t confuse me with facts!”

And the lamestream media laps it up as evidence of the eeeee-villl Patriarchy!

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".